Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 180 posts

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#91

Post by jeffbee »

raldi wrote: post #90
jeffbee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the "converted a duplex into a one-man home" guy. Also the "parks on the street for free" guy. What a surprise.

Best part of the story is how he spent a bunch of money on a lawsuit whose sole final result is that now UCB can grow without fear of future lawsuits. He would've been better off setting the money on fire.

This is white peoples welfare. You can be a historically bad lawyer and financial advisor at the same time but still be a comfortably-housed person with zero taxes.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#92

Post by thaumasiotes »

gamblor956 wrote: post #80
thaumasiotes wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the new law explicitly contemplates these types of lawsuits. It doesn't say you can't sue this way. It says colleges and universities who are sued this way can't be compelled to do anything for 18 months. (Which invalidates the court judgment ordering UC Berkeley to stop enrolling students.) It is logically necessary, for this law to exist at all, that the original lawsuit was valid, and that the "remedy" was als…

No, the law clearly states that enrollment increases are not, on their own, subject to CEQA: From TTOTFL itself: "This bill would delete the provision requiring the environmental effects relating to changes in enrollment levels be considered in the EIR prepared for the long-range development plan. The bill would provide that enrollment or changes in enrollment, by themselves, do not constitute a project for purposes…

It doesn't look like the relevant law is actually changing. There is a provision being deleted:

> Environmental effects relating to changes in enrollment levels shall be considered for each campus or medical center of public higher education in the environmental impact report prepared for the long range development plan for the campus or medical center.

This already doesn't say that enrollment levels require their own reviews; it says they have to be considered in the university's long-range development plan, which it must file for other reasons. (The bill also amends all instances of "long range development plan" to "long-range development plan". Not sure why.)

There are also two provisions being added. The one that looks good is:

> Enrollment or changes in enrollment, by themselves, do not constitute a project as defined in Section 21065.

Here's the other one:

> If a court determines that increases in campus population exceed the projections adopted in the most recent long-range development plan and analyzed in the supporting environmental impact report, and those increases result in significant environmental impacts, the court may order the campus or medical center to prepare a new, supplemental, or subsequent environmental impact report. Only if a new, supplemental, or subsequent environmental impact report has not been certified within 18 months of that order, the court may, pursuant to Sections 525 and 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enjoin increases in campus population that exceed the projections adopted in the most recent long-range development plan and analyzed in the supporting environmental impact report.

This pretty clearly requires the university's long-range development plan to consider the environmental impact of projected enrollment levels. What did we gain by moving that requirement from subsection (b) to subsection (e)?

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#94

Post by tylerhou »

nomel wrote: post #42
jeffbee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the streets are so empty in Berkeley these days that when I took these photos on Saturday it was literally just tumbleweeds, not hundreds of people gathering in the streets of southside. Truly, a hell-hole. https://twitter.com/Jeffinatorator/status/150278067270801408...

A synthetic gathering is not related to the reduction in the natural hustle and bustle. Do you have any pictures before or after that group passed through?

As someone who lives near downtown Berkeley, there are plenty of people walking around and gathering during the day; particularly at the square area near Shattuck and Center. On University you see people lined up outside Berkeley Social Club/Imm Thai Street Food nearly every day. I've only been on southside a few times this year, but every weekend I've gone there were the normal amount of people there (basically the same as prepandemic). Don't get me started about the block-long lines at Cheeseboard. So I'm not sure where this notion of Berkeley being a ghost town is coming from.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#95

Post by coolspot »

mbg721 wrote: post #86
genocidicbunny wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your average NIMBY doesn't want _any_ change. They want their neighborhoods to be preserved exactly the way they are without anything changing. Higher property values is just a mask to hide the less palatable message of 'I want to ossify my neighborhood'.

Another way to frame that is "I'm heavily personally invested in this neighborhood, and I don't want all the things that I love about it to be lost." Change for change's sake isn't necessarily good.

Careful when you talk like that to a Genocidic Bunny.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#96

Post by stjohnswarts »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #15
falcolas wrote: post #5

Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on both the legislation and the school.

The exact opposite. The legislature (which passed this unanimously) AND the governor passed this legislation as a check on the power of the court. This happens all the time, e.g. famously when the US passed the 16th amendment to allow income tax.

Exactly, this was the result of an overly activist judgement. Signalled by a unanimous vote (how often does that happen in any state?) that the court overstepped it's bounds and gave it definitive statutes to rule by and reign it back in.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#97

Post by genocidicbunny »

mbg721 wrote: post #86
genocidicbunny wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your average NIMBY doesn't want _any_ change. They want their neighborhoods to be preserved exactly the way they are without anything changing. Higher property values is just a mask to hide the less palatable message of 'I want to ossify my neighborhood'.

Another way to frame that is "I'm heavily personally invested in this neighborhood, and I don't want all the things that I love about it to be lost." Change for change's sake isn't necessarily good.

Yes, and that is the framing that is commonly used by NIMBYs.

The trouble is, this is akin to trying to stop the ocean from breaking waves on the beach. The change is going to happen. You can stand against it, or you can work with it to get a mutually beneficial outcome. If you choose to stand against it, don't be surprised when the world either rolls you over or goes around you.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#98

Post by stjohnswarts »

vkou wrote: post #55
falcolas wrote: post #5

Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on both the legislation and the school.

Courts can only serve as checks and balances in three things: 1. Determining whether an executive action is consistent with legislated law. 2. Determining whether a piece of legislature is consistent with a more important piece of legislature (Constitutionality.) 3. Determining how two contradictory pieces of legislature are to be interpreted in practice. (A superset of #2.) A court rules on the current state of law.…

4. When two laws are actually in disagreement on a situation, they can prefer one over the other.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#99

Post by TaylorAlexander »

falcolas wrote: post #5

Seems like an odd move to undercut the checks and balances courts are supposed to have over legislation. Enacting a law solely to undercut a court's decision seems spurious, and may blow back on both the legislation and the school.

My understanding is that courts have to interpret existing law and “if you don’t like the court’s decision, change the law” is exactly how legislature is supposed to respond. Courts are not supposed to set policy, legislature is.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#100

Post by mbg721 »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #97
mbg721 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to frame that is "I'm heavily personally invested in this neighborhood, and I don't want all the things that I love about it to be lost." Change for change's sake isn't necessarily good.

Yes, and that is the framing that is commonly used by NIMBYs. The trouble is, this is akin to trying to stop the ocean from breaking waves on the beach. The change is going to happen. You can stand against it, or you can work with it to get a mutually beneficial outcome. If you choose to stand against it, don't be surprised when the world either rolls you over or goes around you.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN